The Spiritual & Physical//The Natural & Supernatural

[Thanks to Karin Henseler]

Why are we and the universe physical? Why is there time and space? Why is there not just a spiritual world?Imagine that we lived in a purely spiritual world. Then what would be left? Even if we just wanted to talk philosophy all day, how could we do this if there was no physical world to analyze? Even if we just wanted to talk about numbers, what actual existence do numbers have apart from things to count? But in the spiritual world, there is no separation or particularity, as in the physical world. So I ask again, what would be left? How can the spiritual exist without the physical? Or do I only say this because I'm a physical being, helplessly stuck in a physical world? Surely, God can exist just fine without a single atom.Why did Jesus waste time as a carpenter? Why did Joseph waste time in prison? Why did Moses waste time as a shepherd? Why do I have to waste time wiping my ass, feeding myself, etc? (See also Work)Rules = fun, omnipotence = no fun. In real life simulation computer games, for some reason, people impose rules on themselves while playing the game. For example, they could make it so that everybody can control their own time of day, but instead the sun sets at the same time for everyone and you have to deal with it whether you like it or not, just like in this real world. Also, when kids play Super Power, or make up any other kind of game or story for that matter, nobody can be omnipotent, or there can be no omnipotent character or omnipotence-giving magical object. That would spoil the whole game/story. So why do I rant and rave that the sun has to set so early during winter? Why do I grumble that I have to take some form of transportation to get from point A to point B (instead of teleporting)?What's the point of the new physicality (displayed by Jesus), since it appears to make physicality redundant? After his resurrection he could levitate (at his ascension [Acts 1:9-11]), and appear and disappear (on several occasions, one of them being the scene with doubting Thomas [Jn 20:26]); thus, he wasn't limited by any physical constraints. But it seems that that's exactly the purpose of physical reality -- that there be rules and constraints.

What's the difference between the natural and the supernatural, since even nature is made by God and must be upheld by him?

Why did God make any of the natural laws, as if they really did anything, since it is he who maintains their regular order?Situation: 2 friends of the same person (friend A and friend B of person C); A likes C more than B likes C, but it’s harder for A to put out the effort to keep in touch with C than for B to do the same with C, because A’s just not that kind of person (you might also say that there's some physical impediment, like geographical non-proximity that's getting in the way). In the end, the relationship between B and C is maintained, even though it was less worthy of such than that between A and C, which is a great contradiction. But I bet many, many things in life are like this. What should I call this type of scenario? Is this also a question of effort and grace? Or the tangible and intangible, the aesthetic and the practical/physical? Certainly, in this particular case, I would call it a war, of some type.

Maybe arranged marriages are like work – so then which is better – an arranged marriage or one of love, work given or work chosen, or in this fallen world, does it matter? Is everything the same despite everything?

What should be our true level of thankfulness? Let’s do a thought experiment -- Imagine 2 scenarios – in one, you’re on a desert island, thrust together with some stranger (of the opposite sex), and made to stay there for years and years. Not that the years and years matter, because I’m sure it’d only be a matter of time before the two of you came to deeply love one another. And the second – that, with the help of a supercomputer that contained all the data on everyone on the planet (and let’s say this computer was so good it could even figure in chemistry), the 7 billion people on this planet were sorted through for you and your absolute, highest perfect match was found. So then whom do you think you’d love more? But more importantly, whom would you appreciate more? The one that, through suffering and a common experience you come to love deeply and who becomes precious to you, or the one where fireworks go off every time you see them, knowing that this is the one for you, that you were made for each other and there could be no possible better match? So you see, it’s all relative. It’s not the love itself that produces appreciation, but the circumstances under which that love comes into being. And this scenario (as well as the question of relativity and appreciation) also relates to grace and work. The first work, because the love doesn’t come naturally, but you had no choice or you’d torture your own self with loneliness, the second, grace, because you naturally are perfect for one another and there is no special effort required to understand each other or get along. But then here’s the funny thing – is it a matter of work, in the first scenario? If you could really throw any two people together, in such a way that they must cling to each other to survive, so that they come to love the other, then that doesn’t really sound so hard. It would be the best form of marriage counseling, if only it were feasible, but while we’re surrounded by a crowd of potential mates in this world, we look around and think of the possibilities, rather than stay put and appreciate, but you can’t fake the “desert island”, as much as you’d like. Just because it’s all relative doesn’t mean it’s not real and is based in reality. So then the circumstances, one could say, forced them into love, even though, what else could you expect? It makes sense that it would happen this way. And if the circumstances forced them into love, can we say that it was work, since it was inevitable? So the work, it ends up, is also grace. Now let me add that real life is a mixture of the two – we end up on “islands” with another person from “chance” circumstances – we can’t meet everyone in the world; we’re limited to our own little circles as we go through the various spheres of our lives (such as work, or a club, or school or church or geographic location or socioeconomic status or what have you) and through our lifetimes. Or perhaps we have a particular personality that only particular people can understand, so though we’re swimming in a crowd, or “rowing through the ocean”, there are only certain islands that will do. And so we’re thrown together and must make do with the other person, even if they’re not completely to our liking, especially at first. But on the other hand, people choose each other. That is, you don’t need a huge supercomputer to sort through all those 7 billion people to find you your match. Walk into any room full of people, and the people who belong together will spontaneously form into their own groups and people will pair off without being conscious of what they’re doing.If people really did live in the matrix, would that still not constitute reality? Why isn’t dreaming (vs traveling) good enough for people? Why do people go to concerts, the movies or museums when they can just see it on TV or their computer? So people choose real life over virtual reality, but I don’t see why this should be. I mean, yes, I can see the attraction, but I wouldn’t give into it just because it doesn’t make any sense.

Gluttony is bad, but throwing up your food so you can eat more is even
worse. But either way, the food is wasted, so what’s the difference? And
might this have something to do with birth control?

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.